Isaiah 40-66: A Commentary

By Shalom M. Paul

In-depth exegesis from a renowned Hebrew scholar

This Eerdmans Critical Commentary volume is Shalom Paul's comprehensive, all-inclusive study of the oracles of an anonymous prophet known only as Second Isaiah who prophesied in the second half of the sixth century B.C.E. Paul examines Isaiah 40–66 through a close reading of the biblical text, offering thorough exegesis of the historical, linguistic, literary, and theological aspects of the prophet's writings. He also looks carefully at intertextual influences of earlier biblical and extrabiblical books, draws on the contributions of medieval Jewish commentators, and supports the contention that Second Isaiah should include chapters 55–66, thus eliminating the need to demarcate a Third Isaiah.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Eerdmans
• Release date: May 1, 2012
• ISBN: 9781467435512

Shalom M. Paul

Shalom M. Paul is Yehezkel Kaufman Professor Emeritus ofBible at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and chair ofthe Dead Sea Scrolls Foundation. His many books includeStudies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light ofCuneiform and Biblical Law and Divrei Shalom:Collected Studies of Shalom M. Paul on the Bible and theAncient Near East, 1967–2005.

Book preview

THE EERDMANS CRITICAL COMMENTARY

†David Noel Freedman, General Editor

Astrid B. Beck, Associate Editor

THE EERDMANS CRITICAL COMMENTARY offers the best of contemporary Old and New Testament scholarship, seeking to give modern readers clear insight into the biblical text, including its background, its interpretation, and its application.

Contributors to the ECC series are among the foremost authorities in biblical scholarship worldwide. Representing a broad range of confessional backgrounds, authors are charged to remain sensitive to the original meaning of the text and to bring alive its relevance for today. Each volume includes the author’s own translation, critical notes, and commentary on literary, historical, cultural, and theological aspects of the text.

Accessible to serious general readers and scholars alike, these commentaries reflect the contributions of recent textual, philological, literary, historical, and archaeological inquiry, benefiting as well from newer methodological approaches. ECC volumes are critical in terms of their detailed, systematic explanation of the biblical text. Although exposition is based on the original and cognate languages, English translations provide complete access to the discussion and interpretation of these primary sources.

ISAIAH 40–66

Translation and Commentary

Shalom M. Paul

WILLIAM B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY

GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN / CAMBRIDGE, U.K.

© 2012 Shalom M. Paul

All rights reserved

Published 2012 by

Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

2140 Oak Industrial Drive N.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49505 / P.O. Box 163, Cambridge CB3 9PU U.K.

Printed in the United States of America

181716151413127654321

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Paul, Shalom M.

Isaiah 40-66: translation and commentary / Shalom M. Paul.

p.cm.— (The Eerdmans critical commentary)

Includes bibliographical references.

ISBN 978-0-8028-2603-9 (pbk.: alk. paper)

1. Bible. O.T. Isaiah XL–LXVI — Commentaries.

I. Bible. O.T. Isaiah XL–LXVI. English. 2011. II. Title.

BS1515.53.P382011

224′.1077 — dc23

2011022239

www.eerdmans.com

To my wife Yona

on our Golden Wedding Anniversary

Contents

Preface

Abbreviations

Introduction

1.Deutero-Isaiah

2.Trito-Isaiah?

3.Historical Survey

Excursus A: Prayer of Nabonidus

Excursus B: Cyrus Cylinder

4.Rishonôt and Ḥadashôt

5.Servant Songs

6.Attitudes toward Foreigners and Religious Universalism

7.Deutero-Isaiah, Polemicist

8.Descriptions of Jerusalem

9.Descriptions of God, His Attributes, and His Relationship to His People

10.Unique Style and Literary Sequence

11.Language of the Book: Aramaic and Late Hebrew

12.Inner-Biblical Traditions Reflected in Deutero-Isaiah

13.Deuteronomic and Deuteronomistic Influences on Deutero-Isaiah

14.Influence of First Isaiah on Deutero-Isaiah

15.Influence of Jeremiah on Deutero-Isaiah

16.Additional Prophetic Influences on Deutero-Isaiah

17.Psalmic Influences on Deutero-Isaiah

18.Parallels between the Book of Lamentations and Deutero-Isaiah

19.Deutero-Isaiah and the Literary Heritage of the Ancient Near East

20.Isaiah Scrolls from Qumran and Ancient Translations

21.Deutero-Isaiah in Jewish Liturgy

Translation

Commentary

Selected Bibliography

Index of Authors

Index of Subjects

Literary Devices

Scribal Phenomena

Index of Sources

Index of Commentaries on Isaiah

Preface

For a score or more years, I have been enchanted by the prophecies in Isaiah 40-66, in which the anonymous prophet comforted and encouraged his people during the last years of the Babylonian exile and the early years of their return to Zion.

In this commentary I have not attempted to review all the possible interpretations of modern exegetes or the plethora of secondary literature. Medieval commentators, who are often overlooked or rarely referred to, are cited when their remarks are significant to the understanding of a verse. The reader is also referred to the comprehensive bibliography at the end of the volume that covers all aspects of this prophetic work. What is unique about this commentary is the exegesis of the Hebrew text with its emphasis on the philological, poetic, literary, linguistic, grammatical, historical, archaeological, ideational, and theological aspects of the prophecies, in which every word, phrase, clause, and verse is examined and explicated, and, in addition, aided by both inner-biblical allusions, influences, and parallels, and extrabiblical sources, primarily from Akkadian and Ugaritic literature. The Septuagint, as well as the Isaiah scrolls from Qumran — especially the complete Isaiah scroll, IQIsaa — are of paramount significance and are adduced when they shed light on the verses or deviate from the Masoretic text.

It is my pleasant duty to thank Dr. Tzemah Yoreh, who worked assiduously and skillfully to translate the preliminary manuscript, prior to my updating, revising, and expanding the present work, and to Ḥani Davis for her unstinting devotion, professional advice, and acumen in preparing the final version of the manuscript. I happily convey my gratitude to Allen C. Myers, senior editor of Eerdmans Publishing Company, who patiently and understandingly waited several years for my manuscript to reach his hands. The invitation to write the commentary was initiated by my very dear friend and colleague, Professor David Noel Freedman, of blessed memory, whose wish was for my volume to launch this new series for Eerdmans. Unfortunately, he passed away before he could review and edit it, a personal loss for me since he undoubtedly would have contributed to a further understanding of the manifold issues in these prophecies. It is my hope that this volume will provide an important link in the ongoing chain of commentaries to this profound and inspiring prophetic work.

My commentary is dedicated to my loving wife, Yona, with whom I have been fortunate and blessed to have shared the last fifty years.

I would like to acknowledge the generosity of The Nathan Cummings Foundation, at the recommendation of Stephen Durchslag, Judy Lavin, and Janet and Gary Resnick, who have made this publication possible.

SHALOM M. PAUL

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Abbreviations

Introduction

1. DEUTERO-ISAIAH

The Masoretic book of Isaiah is composed of two distinct sections written by two different authors at different times. The first section (chaps. 1-39, with the possible exceptions of chaps. 34 and 35; see below) was composed by Isaiah ben Amoz of Jerusalem (First or Proto-Isaiah), and the second by an anonymous prophet, referred to as Second or Deutero-Isaiah, whose prophecies (encompassing chaps. 40-66) were added to the opus of his predecessor. The melding of these two works into one book is quite ancient, as is evident from Sir 48:24 (composed ca. 190 BCE): With inspired power he prophesied the future (חזה אחרית) and consoled the mourners in Zion (וינחם אבלי ציון), which clearly alludes to both Isa 2:1 and 61:2-3. Moreover, in the large Isaiah scroll discovered in Cave 1 of Khirbet Qumran (1QIsaa), dated to the mid-second century BCE, there is no sign of a separation between the two sections of the book. The present-day accepted division is based on many distinctive features, for example, differences in language (the second half of the book is characterized by Late Postexilic Hebrew and bears signs of Aramaic influence; see below, §11) and ideology, including his concept of universal monotheism, the incomparability and singularity of God, his fierce polemic against idol worship, the eternal covenant of God with the nation, his religious universalism, the future splendor of Jerusalem, and the sui generis idea of the divine servant (see below, §5). Special attention must also be paid to the different historical background reflected in his prophecies that distinguishes him from First Isaiah.

First Isaiah prophesied in Jerusalem during the second half of the eighth century BCE, at a time when both the northern kingdom of Judah and the southern kingdom of Israel were still in existence, and when the nation was still in possession of its ancestral land (although the north was indeed destroyed in the latter days of his prophetic career). The monarchs referred to in Isaiah’s prophecies are Uzziah (1:1; 6:1), Jotham (1:1), Ahaz (1:1; 7:1, 3, 10, 12; 38:8), and Hezekiah (1:1; and frequently in chaps. 36-39) — kings of Judah; Pekah son of Remaliah, king of Israel (7:1, 4, 5, 9; 8:6); and Rezin, king of Aram (7:1, 4, 8; 8:6; 9:10) — all of whom rule within this time frame. The Assyrians are the sole enemy mentioned (e.g., 7:17, 20; 8:4, 7; 10:12 [scholars acknowledge the prophecy against Babylon in chap. 13 to be a late addition]), serving as the rod of the divine wrath (10:5). Three of their kings are noted by name — Sargon (20:1), Sennacherib (36:1; 37:17, 21, 37), and Esarhaddon (37:38) — while the Babylonian monarch, Merodach-baladan, is presented in the positive light of a well-wisher, following Hezekiah’s recovery from illness (39:1). The events described in chaps. 1-39 all occurred in this period, for example, the death of Uzziah, king of Judah (chap. 6); the war between Judah and the Syro-Ephraimite alliance (chaps. 7-8); the Assyrian conquest of Ashdod (chap. 20); and, above all, the capture of the Judean cities and the siege against Jerusalem in 701 BCE (chaps. 36-37).

In contrast, Deutero-Isaiah prophesied in the second half of the sixth century BCE, during the final years of the Babylonian exile and the beginning of the return of the exiles to Jerusalem. The kingdom of Israel had ceased to exist many years earlier (720 BCE), and the Judean monarchy had met the same fate in 586 BCE. The cities of Judah, foremost among them Jerusalem, and the Temple were in ruins, while the forlorn Israelites languished in the Babylonian exile. Babylon, itself on the brink of destruction, is depicted as full of sorceries (44:25; 47:9-15), riches (45:3), overweening pride (I am, and there is none but me; 47:8, 10), and possessed by an overblown sense of security and self-importance (47:1, 7, 8). The description of the deportation of its two chief deities — Bel (= Marduk, the head of the Babylonian pantheon) and his son, Nebo (= Nabû, the divine scribe; 46:1-2) — alludes to Babylon’s imminent downfall. In the latter chapters, the prophet describes the domestic scene prevalent in Jerusalem, where pagan practices prevail and a discernible split is evident within the community itself (e.g., chaps. 65-66).

The only foreign monarch who appears in the prophecies of Deutero-Isaiah is Cyrus, king of Persia (559-530 BCE), who is mentioned by name (44:28; 45:1), alluded to explicitly (41:2-3, 25; 43:14; 45:2-6, 13; 46:11; 48:14-15), and referred to as My shepherd (44:28), His anointed one (45:1), and the man of My counsel (46:11). Cyrus appears on history’s stage as a tool of God whose purpose is to free Israel from captivity and perform the divine will of rebuilding the Temple and Jerusalem (44:28). The nation, in turn, is commanded: Go forth from Babylon! Flee from Chaldea! (48:20; and cf. 52:11). In contrast to First Isaiah, who predicts the ascension of a Davidic scion in the latter days (11:1-9), Deutero-Isaiah reinterprets these promises of the eternal covenant promised to David as applying to the nation as a whole (55:3-4) — an ideological revolution at odds with most of the historiographical and psalmic literature (e.g., 1 Sam 25:28; 2 Sam 7:4-17; 23:5; 1 Kgs 2:4; 8:23-26; 11:38; Ps 89:25-37; 132:10), as well as the prophetic literature (e.g., Jer 23:5-6; 33:14-18, 19-22, 26; Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-25; Hag 2:23).

This bipartite division of the canonical book of Isaiah was first alluded to in Abraham Ibn Ezra’s commentary (where he also quotes the Spanish sage Moshe ben Shemuel HaKohen ben Jaqtila, who lived in Cordoba at the beginning of the eleventh century CE), where he comments several times that chaps. 40ff. are prophecies of consolation delivered to the Babylonian expatriates, that is, to Deutero-Isaiah’s contemporaries:

The first consolations from the second half of the book refer to the Second Temple, according to Rabbi Moshe Hakohen, may he rest in peace. And according to my opinion, they all refer to our exile. Nevertheless, issues of the Babylonian exile are spoken of in the book, along with mention of Cyrus, who freed the expatriates. At the end of the book, however, there are references to the future … and he who is wise shall understand.

(Ibn Ezra, commentary on 40:1)

Or it is a reference to the Babylonians, and that is correct.… Indeed, I have already hinted to you of the secret in the second half of the book. And according to many, the mention of kings (in his prophecies) refers, for example, to Cyrus.

(Ibn Ezra on 49:7)

We have already said regarding this prophecy that it refers to the Babylonian exile.

(Ibn Ezra on 52:1)

See also his remarks on, for example, 41:2, 6, 25; 43:14, 16; 44:25; 45:1; 46:11.

The distinction between the two parts of the book was rediscovered by J. Ch. Döderlein in 1776 in his Latin commentary to Isaiah and popularized by J. G. Eichhorn in 1783, and since then has become part and parcel of all scholarly research. One reason for combining the two sets of prophecies was their linguistic affinity, which was due to the influence of First Isaiah on this prophet (see below, §14) — though, as will be seen, Deutero-Isaiah was influenced just as much, if not more, by Jeremiah (see below, §15). Another likely motive for the combination of the two prophetic works was the desire to append prophecies of consolation and comfort to the impending exile prophesied in chap. 39. After Israel would serve their term of punishment, they would be redeemed. Compare Ibn Ezra’s comment on 40:1: "This passage [i.e., chap. 40] comes next, since above [39:6-7] it was prophesied that all the king’s treasure and his sons would be exiled to Babylon, and thus there follow prophecies of consolation." A narrative continuity spanning the three great empires of the ancient Near East — Assyria, Babylonia, and Persia — is thereby established.

(A) ISAIAH 34-35

According to many commentators, chap. 34 and, in particular, chap. 35 should also be attributed to Deutero-Isaiah. Their claims are based primarily on the linguistic and thematic affinities between these two chapters and the prophecies of Deutero-Isaiah:

(1)Chapter 34

34:1-5; 66:15-16: A general trial against the nations.

34:6-17; 63:1-6: The specific mention of the destruction of Edom.

Common images:

34:6: The Lord has a sword; it is sated with blood.… For the Lord holds a sacrifice in Bozrah, a great slaughter in the land of Edom — 63:1: Who is this coming from Edom, in crimsoned garments from Bozrah?

34:8: For it is the Lord’s day of vengeance, the year of vindication for Zion’s cause — 63:4: For I had planned a day of vengeance, and My year of redemption arrived; cf. also 61:2: And a day of vengeance for our God.

(2)Chapter 35

Ecological reversal — Water in the desert and the flowering of the wilderness: 35:1-2; 41:18-19; 43:19-20; 44:3; 49:10; 51:3. Note too 35:6-7: For waters shall burst forth in the desert, streams in the wilderness. Torrid earth shall become a pool; parched land, fountains of water — the term שרב (torrid earth) appears only here and in 49:10; and the expression: מבועי מים (fountains of waters) only in this verse and 49:10.

Common images:

The revelation of the Lord’s presence: 35:2: They shall behold the Lord’s presence — 40:5: The presence of the Lord shall appear, and all flesh, as one, shall behold; cf. 59:19; 60:1-2, 13; 61:6; 62:2.

The consolation and encouragement of Israel: 35:4: Say … ‘Fear not! Behold your God!’ — 40:9: Fear not! Say … ‘Behold your God!’

Revenge on the nations: 35:4: Vengeance is coming, the recompense of God. He Himself is coming to give you triumph — 63:4-5: For I had planned a day of vengeance, and My year of redemption arrived.… So My own arm wrought the triumph. For the bringing of God’s recompense upon the nations, see also 59:18.

The return of the redeemed to Israel on a straight and level highway: 35:8: And a highway shall appear there — 40:3: Clear in the desert a road for the Lord! Level in the wilderness a highway for our God! (cf. also 57:14; 62:10). This road shall be named the Sacred Way (35:8), or, alternatively, the Lord’s Road (40:3). The image of a path or highway in the desert is reiterated in 42:16; 43:19; 49:9, 11; 57:14; 62:10.

35:10: This verse, And the ransomed of the Lord shall return and come with shouting to Zion, crowned with joy everlasting. They shall attain joy and gladness, while sorrow and sighing flee, is repeated word for word in 51:11; and the expression שׂמחת עולם (joy everlasting) appears again in 61:7.

The image of the blind and deaf: 35:5; 42:18-20.

The synonymous pair שׂושׂ/גיל (to be glad/to rejoice) is found in 35:1; 61:10; 65:18-19; 66:10; and the term גילה (exultation) appears only in 35:2; 65:18.

The expression the glory of Lebanon (כבוד הלבנון) is present only in 35:2; 60:13.

Compare also the terms גאולים (the redeemed; 35:9; 51:10), גאולי ה׳ (the redeemed of the Lord; 62:12), which appears again only in Ps 107:2.

Although it is not at all certain that chap. 34 was once part of Deutero-Isaiah’s opus, it is entirely possible that chap. 35 was, since, as seen above, this chapter shares a fair number of features characteristic of his prophecies. Chapter 35 may have originally preceded chap. 40, prior to the addition of the historical chapters (Isa 36-39).

2. TRITO-ISAIAH?

A major turning point in the study of this book was reached in 1892 with the publication of B. Duhm’s commentary on Isaiah and his contention that chaps. 56ff. were the work of a different prophet, called Trito-Isaiah. (He was preceded by the Dutch scholar Abraham Kuenen, who made similar claims in the 1880s.) Many scholars have accepted his opinion, although there is no basic agreement among them regarding the exact date of composition. Proposed dates range from the first years following the return from Babylonia, from the period of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah (mid-sixth century BCE), from the days of Ezra and Nehemiah (mid-fifth century BCE), and some even date the opus as late as the third century BCE. Commentators also disagree about the unity of these chapters. Some posit that they were composed by one individual, while others claim that they are a disparate collection of prophecies from different periods. The various arguments for the division of chaps. 40-66 into two separate units are presented below, together with their respective refutations.

Beginning with chap. 56, there is an increased emphasis on the prophetic rebuke against the people’s present conduct (e.g., 56:9-12; 57:3-13; 58:1-14; 59:1-18; 65:1-15; 66:1-9, 15-17, 24), as opposed to Deutero-Isaiah’s concentration on the sins of the past (e.g., 42:18-21; 43:22-28; 50:1). However, there is ample proof of the prophet’s calling the people to task also for their iniquities in the present (e.g., 46:8, 12; 48:4-11; 50:11; 51:13).

Some claim that one can deduce from some of the later chapters that both the Temple (56:5, 7; 60:7, 13; 62:9; 66:1, 6, 20, 23; cf. the term הר קדשי, My holy mountain, 56:7; 57:13; 65:11; 66:20) and the walls of Jerusalem were already rebuilt (49:16; 56:5; 60:10, 18; 62:6). This is cited as evidence of a later period, since the foundation of the Second Temple took place in 515 BCE (Ezra 6:15) and the walls of the city were rebuilt only in 445 BCE. This may be countered, however, by citing Isa 64:10 (properly part of Trito-Isaiah according to this theory), which explicitly states that our holy temple was still in ruins, and there is no indication whatsoever in the verses referred to above of the actual completion of the walls. All references are to the future when, for example, Aliens shall rebuild your walls (60:10). This is very similar to 44:28: He shall say of Jerusalem, ‘She shall be rebuilt,’ and to the Temple, ‘You shall be founded again’ ; and 49:16: Your walls are ever before Me, an obvious reference to the future, since none will argue that at the time of Deutero-Isaiah the walls had been rebuilt.

There is a difference in the geographical locus of the prophecies. The claim is made that the prophecies in chaps. 40-55 were delivered in a Babylonian milieu, whereas chaps. 56-66 were composed for a Jerusalem audience, in a different locus and therefore by a different prophet. Some, however, contend that chap. 49 is the turning point, wherein the Jerusalem background can be detected (e.g., 49:14-23; 51:1-3, 17-23; cf., as well, 52:11: Depart from there, in comparison to 48:20: Go forth from Babylon! Flee from Chaldea! — the locus of the latter referring to the Babylonian captivity). The Babylonian setting of the first nine chapters (40-48) is blatantly clear (see especially 43:14; 46:1-2; 47; 48:14, 20). The reason for the shift in focus from Babylon to Jerusalem is not due to the appearance of a different prophet. Rather, it seems very likely that Deutero-Isaiah practiced as he preached and returned to Jerusalem with his compatriots, where he continued his prophetic career.

After chap. 48 there is no further mention of Cyrus, in contrast to his being previously mentioned specifically by name (44:28; 45:1) and by allusions (41:2-3, 25; 43:14; 45:2-6, 13; 46:11; 48:14-15), which leave no doubt as to his identity. However, this lack of concern regarding Cyrus in chaps. 49ff. does not point to a different author, but rather to the fact that after Cyrus’s conquest of Babylon in 539 (see below, §3) the king was no longer of any interest to Deutero-Isaiah, since his importance in the eyes of the prophet was restricted solely to the role he played in helping to bring about the redemption of the nation and in serving as the agent for the Deity’s plan for Israel.

Some claim that there is a dissonance between the earlier chapters and the later ones with regard to the redeemer and the redemption. According to chaps. 40-48, the redeemer is Cyrus, who shall put an end to the Babylonian hegemony, and thus redemption is understood in historical terms. Chapters 56-66 indicate, however, that the Lord is the sole redeemer, and that He alone contends on Israel’s behalf (e.g., 59:16-20; 63:1-6; 66:16-17), and thus redemption is essentially eschatological. In the earlier chapters, Cyrus indeed stands tall on history’s stage. All his actions, however, are initiated by the Deity, and he is no more than the instrument with which God implements His plan to bring about Israel’s redemption (regarding the polemic against a foreign king as redeemer see 45:9-13). Thus Cyrus’s role does not in any way contradict the assertion that God and God alone is Israel’s savior (see 43:1; 44:22, 23; 48:20; 52:3, 9). Nevertheless, his conception of redemption did become eschatological and did become contingent on the nation’s conduct (58:1-14). Redemption was shifted to the future since Deutero-Isaiah’s earlier prophecies of redemption were not fully realized.

Some argue that the conquest and subjugation of the world by Cyrus (41:2-3; 45:1-6) stands in contrast to an Israelite empire, with Jerusalem as its international capital and locus of tribute (e.g., 60; 61:6; 66:12). This dichotomy, however, does not truly exist, since the subjugation of foreign kings is described also in the earlier chapters (49:7, 22-23). Israel shall conquer nations (54:3) and command peoples: So you shall summon a nation you did not know, and a nation that did not know you shall come running to you (55:5).

The motif of repossession of the land by the Lord’s servants appears only in chaps. 56-66 (e.g., 57:13; 60:11; 61:7; 65:9). The rationale for this, however, is quite simple. The earlier chapters emphasize the nation’s redemption from captivity, and only afterward, when the expatriates have returned, does the prophet emphasize the repossession and inheritance of the land.

In the earlier chapters the prophet’s audience is the entire nation: And all your children shall be disciples of the Lord (54:13) and are named the Lord’s servant (in the singular; see below). The later chapters (chaps. 56-66), on the other hand, are characterized by a socioreligious schism dividing the returnees. A struggle ensues between My servants (65:8, 9, 13, 14, 15) — who are also called mourners (57:18; 61:2; 66:10), mourners in Zion (61:3), all you who love her [Jerusalem] (66:10), My chosen ones (65:9, 15), those who trust in Me (57:13), who is concerned about My word (66:2), You who are concerned about His word (66:5), My people who seek Me (65:10), righteous … pious men (57:1) — and a second group, variously termed you who forsake the Lord (65:11), the wicked (57:20, 21), His foes (66:6, 14), the men who rebelled against Me (66:24), your kinsmen who hate you, who spurn you (66:5). It follows from 66:3-4 that the priestly caste was among those adverse to Deutero-Isaiah and his teachings (see the commentary on chap. 66). This schism, however, which may reflect a struggle between the returnees and the nonexiled Judeans, emerged only when the two groups came into contact following the return. There is, however, no reason to date this national schism to the days of Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra 4; Neh 5), since its existence is already apparent from Jer 24; Ezek 33:23-29.

In the earlier chapters, the nation as a whole is called (the Lord’s) servant, almost invariably in the singular (41:8, 9; 42:1, 19; 43:10; 44:1-2, 21, 26; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3, 5-6; 50:10; 52:13; 53:11; the only exception being 54:17). In the later chapters, however, the term always appears in the plural (56:6; 63:17; 65:8-9, 13-15; 66:14). The reason for this difference is, as mentioned above, the national schism that emerged only upon the return, when only those loyal to the Lord were called His servants. Nevertheless, the earlier chapters also remonstrate against the deaf and blind ones (42:18-19) who sinned (43:22-25, 27; 44:22; 50:1) and rebelled against Him (46:8; 48:8), and those stubborn of heart (46:12) who swear … though not in truth and sincerity (48:1).

The latter prophecies of Deutero-Isaiah include numerous terms and ideas that originate in his earlier ones. These are presented below in table form:

These shared ideas and terminology, however, do not imply plural authorship, since the prophet may very well cite his own words. Compare, for example, the fourfold repetition of a prophecy of Jeremiah in 7:34; 16:9; 25:10; 33:11. Moreover, these citations were often adapted and expanded to fit the changing situation and integrated into their new context.

The prophet’s polemic against foreign rituals (57:3-13; 65:3-7, 11; 66:3-4, 17) reflects the situation that emerged in Jerusalem following the return from exile. Conversely, there is no mention of the national sins that prevailed in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, such as intermarriage (Ezra 10:2, 10, 14, 17, 18, 44; Neh 13:26, 27) or the indenture of children (Neh 5:5).

The prophet’s revolutionary egalitarian policy regarding inclusion of foreigners in the national effort to rebuild the walls and their participation in the Temple ministry (56:3, 6-7; 60:6-7, 10; 61:5; 66:21) is to be explained as an adaptation to the new conditions prevailing in Israel after the return from Babylonia.

The distinction between the word of the Lord that comes to pass (45:23; 55:10-11), an idea well anchored in Deuteronomistic theology (e.g., Deut 18:21-22; 2 Kgs 17:23; 24:2), and the word of the Lord that is said to perform the divine will is not reason in and of itself to divide the opus between two prophets.

The renamings of Jerusalem (Isa 60:14; 62:4, 12), of its walls and gates (60:18), of the land (62:4), and of the loyal followers of the Deity (61:3, 6; 62:12) are part of the prophet’s vision of the future and serve as a symbol of rejuvenation.

On the other hand, the following ideas are commonly shared by the two sections:

Consolation of the people, or at least the loyal segment of the people (40:1; 49:13; 51:3, 12, 19; 52:9; 61:2; 66:13)

The expectation of an ingathering (49:17-23; 56:8; 57:14; 60:4, 9; 62:10; 66:20)

Jerusalem referred to as daughter Zion (52:2; 62:11), and described, on the one hand, as desolate, bereaved, and forsaken (49:14, 17; 54:1, 6, 7; 60:15; 61:4; 62:4, 12; 64:9), and, on the other hand, as a city that shall be splendidly rebuilt (44:26; 54:11-12; 62:3-4) and shall become the focus of international pilgrimage and tribute (45:14; 60:5-9, 11, 13; 66:12)

An eternal covenant (ברית עולם) made between the Lord and His people (55:3; 61:8)

Images of the Lord as a female figure (42:14; 45:10; 49:14-15; 66:13)

An ambivalent attitude toward the nations: they shall transport the Judeans back to Zion (49:22; 60:4; 66:20) and shall be their subjects (45:14; 49:23; 60:14), effectively converting to Yahwism (45:22-24; 56:7). The prophet, however, also warns that they shall perish (49:26; 60:12). (Regarding the prophet’s universalism and his attitude toward the nations, see below, §6.)

Shared expressions: כבוד ה׳ (the Lord’s presence; 40:5; 58:8; 60:1); כבודו (His presence; 60:2); כבודי (My presence; 66:18, 19)

לאור גוים (a light of nations; 42:6; 49:6); לאור עמים (for the light of peoples; 51:4); והלכו גוים לאורך (and nations shall walk by Your light; 60:3)

Both parts of the book employ the term הרִאשֹׁנוֹת (41:22; 42:9; 48:3; 65:17). For the meaning of this term see below, §4 (note that in 65:16 the meaning of this term is different)

In the first part of the book, the Lord is the creator of the heavens and earth (40:26, 28; 42:5; 45:12, 18), and in the second He creates a new heaven and a new earth (65:17; 66:22)

The so-called watershed between chaps. 55 and 56, separating Deutero-Isaiah from Trito-Isaiah, is artificial since, as will be shown in the introduction to chap. 56, there are clear linguistic and thematic links between the two.

It appears, therefore, that there is no conclusive reason to attribute chaps. 56-66 to a distinct and later prophet living in the mid-fifth century (or later). The period reflected in these chapters is no later than the early years following the return. If one draws a line between two sections of the book, the line should be drawn between the prophecies delivered in Babylonia (chaps. 40-48) and those delivered in Jerusalem (chaps. 49-66). One should not speak of two different personalities, but of a change in locus following the prophet’s return to Israel.

Both Y. Kaufmann and M. Haran agree that the division between the two sections of this book should be drawn between chaps. 48 and 49. According to Kaufmann, however, the prophet’s shift in orientation was due to his disappointment when his vision of the future was not realized and he thus remained in Babylon (The Babylonian Captivity and Deutero-Isaiah, trans. C. W. Efroymson [New York, 1970], 67-73). Haran, on the other hand, maintains that the thematic change in the prophecies is a reflection of the prophet’s change in residence, since he most likely made the pilgrimage back to Jerusalem along with the early group of returnees (Between Riʾshonôt [Former Prophecies] and Ḥadashôt [New Prophecies] [Jerusalem, 1963], 73-96 [Heb.]).

The prophecies in chaps. 40-48 are characterized by a unique ideological tapestry: the declaration of God’s singularity (43:11-13; 44:6; 45:21-24; 46:9; 48:2) and incomparability (40:18, 25; 46:5); proof of God’s authenticity is drawn from His creative performances in nature (i.e., the cosmogony; 40:12-15, 26, 28; 44:22; 45:7, 11-12, 18; 48:13) and history (i.e., His predictions that came to pass; 41:26; 43:9, 18; 46:9; 48:3; see below, §4); a staged polemical trial against the nations, in which the prophet mocks and derides idolaters and their gods (40:19-20; 41:6-7, 21-24, 29; 42:17; 44:9-20; 45:20-21; 46:1-2, 5-7; see below, §7); Israel as witnesses of the Deity (43:10, 12; 44:8); the proclamation regarding Cyrus’s divinely ordained mission and the fall of Babylon (41:2-3, 25; 43:14; 44:28; 45:1-6, 13; 46:11; 47; 48:14-15); and an indictment against Babylon and its gods (47:1-2; 48).

As long as the prophet was in Babylonia, he gave voice to the nation’s feelings of distress over the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. His tenor was consolatory and comforting, and his emphasis was on the splendor of their future return. Most of his expectation, however, was not realized, although the nation — or at least part of it — did return to Zion. The dismal situation in their homeland, which included internal schisms, the proliferation of foreign cults, and apathetic leaders, disappointed the prophet and were reason enough for the delay of the redemption and the impetus for his harsh chastisement. This being said, he never ceased in expressing his vision of the splendor and centrality of eschatological Jerusalem and of the ultimate redemption of the faithful.

Contemporary scholars tend to divide the book as a whole — chaps. 1-66 — into three parts (chaps. 1–39, 40–55, and 56–66); these were edited, expanded, and combined by a redactor whose purpose was to create a work of unique ideas, images, and language. For more regarding the literary frame encompassing the entire book, see below, the introduction to chaps. 65–66.

Regardless of the arguments presented above, most commentators still divide chaps. 40-66 into two: Deutero-Isaiah and Trito-Isaiah. In contrast, I maintain that chaps. 40-66 are one coherent opus composed by a single prophet.

3. HISTORICAL SURVEY

The sixth century BCE was a tumultuous period in the ancient Near East, and Judah did not escape these upheavals. The Neo-Babylonian Empire collapsed and was replaced by the Persian Empire, under the leadership of Cyrus. Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed, and the nation was exiled to Babylonia. But the sixth century also witnessed the redemption of the exiles and their return to Jerusalem. All these events left their mark on Deutero-Isaiah and are reflected in his prophecies.

The Neo-Babylonian Empire was established in 626 BCE by Nabopolassar. His son and heir, Nebuchadnezzar II (604-562 BCE), occupied Judah in Jehoiachin’s inaugural year (597 BCE), when he exiled all of Jerusalem: all the commanders and all the warriors — ten thousand exiles — as well as all the craftsmen and smiths. Only the poorest people in the land were left. He deported Jehoiachin to Babylon and the king’s mother and wives and officers and the notables of the land were brought as exiles from Jerusalem to Babylon (2 Kgs 24:14-16; cf. 2 Chr 36:9-10; Jer 24:1; 27:20; 52:28). In 586 BCE the Babylonian army under the command of Nebuzaradan, the chief of the guards, destroyed the Temple and the city and exiled the remaining population (2 Kgs 25:8-11; Jer 39:1-10; 40:1; 52:4-27, 29-30; 2 Chr 36:17-21). Following the death of Nebuchadnezzar, his son Evil-merodach assumed power for two years (561-560 BCE), releasing the exiled King Jehoiachin from his imprisonment in Babylon (2 Kgs 25:27-30; Jer 52:31-34). Next in line was Neriglissar, Nebuchadnezzar’s brother-in-law (559-556 BCE), who is mentioned in Jer 39:3, 13, in the account of the siege upon Jerusalem.

After a short period of insurrection led by Labashi-Marduk, the king’s son Nabonidus, who had served as Nebuchadnezzar’s army general but was unrelated to the royal family, ascended the throne (555-539 BCE). His anomalous personality is reflected not only in his idiosyncratic visions (see A. L. Oppenheim, The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East [Philadelphia, 1956], 202-5, 250) but more importantly in the cultic reform he initiated. He established Sin, the moon god, as the new chief deity of the Babylonian pantheon, exalting him over Marduk, who ever since the establishment of the Babylonian monarchy had been regarded as the undisputed king of the gods. This cultic reform was initiated during the monarch’s sojourn in Teima, a desert oasis in the northwest of the Arabian Peninsula (see below, Excursus A: The Prayer of Nabonidus). His residence in this strategic desert city afforded him control of the trade routes between Babylonia and Arabia, and it has been suggested that during this time he attempted to extend the borders of the empire further south. During the ten years of his absence, Nabonidus appointed his son Belshazzar as co-regent, but the latter was never named king.

Sin’s ascension was a great blow to the status of Marduk’s priests, fanning their anger to a blazing flame. Their fierce opposition to Nabonidus was made public in a libelous document from that period, which declared: But he [Nabonidus] mixes up the rites, confuses the (hepatoscopic) oracles, and commands the important ritual observance to cease. He looks at the representations (of the gods) and utters blasphemies. Further on in the inscription, the priests recount that Nabonidus attempted to prove to the priests of Marduk that the Esagila, the central sanctuary of Marduk in Babylon, was in fact a temple honoring Sin: Is not this the sign [the half moon] (of ownership indicating) for whom the temple was built? If it belongs (really) to Bel [= Marduk], it would have been marked with the spade [i.e., Marduk’s symbol]. (Therefore) Sin (himself) has marked (already) his (own) temple with his [half moon] (ANET, 314). The hatred and abhorrence of Nabonidus greatly intensified due to his ten-year sojourn in Teima, since the Babylonian New Year festival, Akitu, which took place at the beginning of the month of Nissan, could not be celebrated. During this holiday, there was a festive procession in which the king would grasp the hand of Marduk, and at the end of these rituals, which spanned eleven days, the promise of peace and fertility would be renewed. The cancellation of the holiday was considered to be sacrilegious and came as a blow to the entire nation’s morale. Furthermore, the Cyrus Cylinder adds insult to injury: By his own plan, he [Nabonidus] did away with the worship of Marduk, the king of the gods. He continually did evil against his (Marduk’s) city. Daily … he [imposed] the corvée upon its inhabitants unrelentingly, ruining them all (trans. M. Cogan, COS 2:315).

While Nabonidus was residing in Teima (he did not return to Babylon until 539 BCE), a new star was rising on the horizon — Cyrus, governor of Anshan (a princedom in Elam) and a vassal of Astyages, king of the Medes (585-550 BCE). In 553 BCE Cyrus rebelled against his overlord and captured him, and in 550 BCE he succeeded in conquering his capital, Ecbatana. In 547 BCE he subdued Sardis and its capital Lud (Lydia) in Asia Minor and overthrew its king, Croesus. Babylon alone now stood between Cyrus and complete control of the entire region. In 540 BCE Cyrus proceeded to wage war against this last stronghold, and on the third of Marheshvan (Oct. 29th) 539 BCE the priests of Marduk opened the gates of Babylon and granted Cyrus a bloodless victory. With this, Babylon’s days as the sovereign city of Mesopotamia came to an end and the Persian era dawned. Cyrus was greeted by the Babylonians as the savior who redeemed them from the yoke of Nabonidus’s idiosyncrasies. He restored Babylon to its former glory, and Marduk and the deity’s priests to their former predominate prestige. Cyrus proceeded to rehabilitate the temples of Babylon and declared himself the rightful king of the Babylonian Empire, which included the land of Israel. His propagandists publicized his exploits in a famous Babylonian inscription referred to as the Cyrus Cylinder (see below, Excursus B).

Cyrus followed a policy of religious tolerance vis-à-vis his subjects throughout his empire. In the first year of his reign he publicized his famous proclamation that granted the Judean expatriates the right to return to their ancestral land, allowing them — and even assisting them in — the rebuilding of their Temple in Jerusalem (Ezra 1:1-4; 6:1-5; 2 Chr 36:22-23; see also Isa 44:28). The actual implementation of this building project, however, took place only during the reign of Darius I in 515 BCE, and the walls were rebuilt during the reign of Artaxerxes I in 444 BCE, at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah.

The historical horizon reflected in Deutero-Isaiah’s prophecy can be narrowed down to the final period of the exile and the beginning of the return. Except for the references to Cyrus, no other explicit historical references may be gleaned.

EXCURSUS A: PRAYER OF NABONIDUS

A faint echo of this monarch’s residence in Teima was preserved in an Aramaic fragment discovered in Cave 4 at Qumran (4Q242), commonly referred to as The Prayer of Nabonidus. This fragment recounts that King Nabni (= Nabonidus) was afflicted for seven years with a dire disease while sojourning in Teiman (= Teima), since he offered prayers to graven gods of gold and silver, wood, stone, and clay. His sin was (apparently) forgiven and he was cured of his affliction following his encounter with a Jewish diviner who advised him to pray to the God Most High:

The words of the p[ra]yer which Nabonidus, king of [Baby]lon, [the great] king, prayed [when he was smitten] with a bad disease by the decree of G[o]d in Teima. [I, Nabonidus, with a bad disease] was smitten for seven years, and sin[ce] G[od] set [his face on me, he healed me], and as for my sin, he remitted it. A diviner, he was a Jew fr[om among the exiles, came to me and said:] Pro[clai]m and write to give honour and exal[tatio]n to the name of G[od Most High, and I wrote as follows:] ‘I was smitten by a b[ad] disease in Teima [by the decree of the Most High God.] For seven years [I] was praying [to] the gods of silver and gold, [bronze, iron,] wood, stone, clay, since [I thoug]ht that th[ey were] gods.’ "

(J. J. Collins, 4QPrayer of Nabonidus, in G. Brooke et al., Qumran Cave 4.XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3, DJD 22 (Oxford, 1996), 83-93, pl. VI)

For the latest inscriptions mentioning Nabonidus in Teima, along with an updated bibliography, see A. Livingstone, ‘Taima’ and Nabonidus: It’s a Small World, in P. Bienkowski et al., eds., Writing and Ancient Near Eastern Society: Papers in Honour of Alan R. Millard (New York, 2005), 29-39. A similar narrative tradition is found in the book of Daniel (chap. 4), in which the diviner is identified as Daniel, and instead of Nabonidus, the monarch punished for idolatry, the tale substitutes the more famous Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar.

EXCURSUS B: CYRUS CYLINDER

The cylinder inscription, written in Akkadian and composed by the priests of Babylon, welcomed Cyrus, who returned Marduk’s idol to the metropolis and reestablished Babylon as a holy city and as the nation’s capital:

An incompetent person was installed to exercise lordship over his country. […] he imposed upon them. An imitation of Esagila he ma[de?] for Ur and the rest of the sacred centers, improper rituals [ ] daily he recited. Irreverently, he put an end to the regular offerings; he [ ], he established in the sacred centers. By his own plan, he did away with the worship of Marduk, the king of the gods; he continually did evil against his (Marduk’s) city. Daily, [without interruption …], he [imposed] the corvée upon its inhabitants unrelentingly, ruining them all.

Upon (hearing) their cries, the lord of the gods became furiously angry [and he left] their borders; and the gods who lived among them forsook their dwellings, angry that he had brought (them) into Babylon. Marduk [ ] turned (?) towards all the habitations that were abandoned and all the people of Sumer and Akkad who had become corpses; [he was recon]ciled and had mercy (upon them). He surveyed and looked throughout all the lands, searching for a righteous king whom he would support. He called out his name: Cyrus, king of Anshan; he pronounced his name to be king over all (the world). He (Marduk) made the land of Gutium and all the Umman-manda bow in submission at his feet. And he (Cyrus) shepherded with justice and righteousness all the black-headed people, over whom he (Marduk) had given him victory. Marduk, the great lord, guardian (?) of his people, looked with gladness upon his good deeds and upright heart. He ordered him to march to his city Babylon. He set him on the road to Babylon and like a companion and friend, he went at his side. His vast army, whose number, like the water of the river, cannot be known, marched at his side fully armed. He made him enter his city Babylon without fighting or battle; he saved Babylon from hardship. He delivered Nabonidus, the king who did not revere him, into his hands. All the people of Babylon, all the land of Sumer and Akkad, princes and governors, bowed to him and kissed his feet. They rejoiced at his kingship and their faces shone. Ruler by whose aid the dead were revived and who had all been redeemed from hardship and difficulty, they greeted him with gladness and praised his name.

I am Cyrus, king of the world, great king, mighty king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four quarters, son of Cambyses, great king, king of Anshan, grandson of Cyrus, great king, king of Anshan, descendant of Teispes, great king, king of Anshan, (of an) eternal line of kingship, whose rule Bel (i.e., Marduk) and Nabu love, whose kingship they desire for their hearts’ pleasure.

When I entered Babylon in a peaceful manner, I took up my lordly reign in the royal palace amidst rejoicing and happiness. Marduk, the great lord, caused the magnanimous people of Babylon [to …] me, (and) I daily attended to his worship. My vast army moved about Babylon in peace; I did not permit anyone to frighten (the people of) [Sumer] and Akkad. I sought the welfare of the city of Babylon and all its sacred centers. As for the citizens of Babylon, upon whom he imposed corvée which was not the god’s will and not befitting them, I relieved their weariness and freed them from their service (?). Marduk, the great lord, rejoiced over my [good] deeds. He sent gracious blessings upon me, Cyrus, the king who worships him, and upon Cambyses, the son who is [my] offspring, [and upo]n all my army, and in peace, before him, we move [about].

By his exalted [word], all the kings who sit upon thrones throughout the world, from the Upper Sea to the Lower Sea, who live in the dis[tricts far-off], the kings of the West, who dwell in tents, all of them brought their heavy tribute before me and in Babylon they kissed my feet. From [Ninev]eh (?), Ashur and Susa, Agade, Eshnunna, Zamban, Meturnu, Der, as far as the region of Gutium, I returned the (images of) the gods to the sacred centers [on the other side of] the Tigris whose sanctuaries had been abandoned for a long time, and I let them dwell in eternal abodes. I gathered all their inhabitants and returned (to them) their dwellings. In addition, at the command of Marduk, the great lord, I settled in their habitations, in pleasing abodes, the gods of Sumer and Akkad, whom Nabonidus, to the anger of the lord of the gods, had brought into Babylon. May all the gods whom I settled in their sacred centers ask daily of Bel and Nabu that my days be long and may they intercede for my welfare. May they say to Marduk, my lord: As for Cyrus, the king who reveres you, and Cambyses, his son, [ ] a reign. I settled all the lands in peaceful abodes.…

Trans. M. Cogan, COS 2:315-16

4. RISHONÔT AND ḤADASHÔT

The two expressions רִאשֹׁנוֹת and חדשות, and their cognates (listed below), in chaps. 40–48 can have various shades of meaning depending on the context. The רִאשֹׁנוֹת refer to God’s deeds in the past, both His involvement in history and the changes He effected in the natural order. They serve as proof and precedent that the חדשות, the new things, shall come to pass as well. These former occurrences span the period from creation through the exodus and up until Cyrus’s victories. Due to some ambiguity in the verses, commentators are divided over the final occurrences that one should include under the term ראשנות, and the first occurrences that should be accounted as חדשות. Thus many exegetes regard Cyrus’s first victories in 550-547 BCE as the latest of things once predicted (see §3 above), whereas Cyrus’s predicted victory over Babylon is considered the first of the new things. In contrast, Haran maintains that the victory over Babylon should still be considered one of the former events, and that the new things yet to occur refer to the redemption of the exiles and their return to Zion (Haran, Between Riʾshonôt and Ḥadashôt, 23-29). Following are the specific terms and their occurrences: (ה)רִאשֹׁנוֹת (41:22; 42:9; 43:18; 46:9; 48:3) and its parallels: מֵרֹאשׁ (40:21; 41:4, 26; 48:16), רֵאשית (46:10), קַדְמֹנִיּוֹת (43:18), מִקֶּדֶם (45:21; 46:10), מאז (44:8; 45:21; 48:3, 5, 7, 8), מעולם (44:7; see the commentary); מִלְּפָנִים (41:26). חדשות (42:9; 48:6) and its parallels: בָּאוֹת (41:22), הָאֹתִיּוֹת (41:23; 44:7), אחרית (41:22; 46:10), לאחור (41:23). The expression רִאשון … אחרון (the first … the last; 44:6; 48:12; and cf. also 41:4) refers to the Lord and expresses His eternal immutability.

5. SERVANT SONGS

Commentators are divided as to the identity of the servant in the four prophecies referred to as the Servant Songs, ever since they were first isolated by Duhm in 1892. According to his division, the first of these prophecies is 42:1-4 (although most exegetes include vv. 5-7 or 5-9); the second is 49:1-4 (here too many commentators extend the prophecy to v. 6 or 9); the third is 50:4-9; and the fourth — 52:13-53:12 — is the most problematic of them all. In the rest of Deutero-Isaiah’s early prophecies (41:8, 9; 42:19; 43:10; 44:1-2, 21, 26; 45:4; 48:20; 50:10; 54:17 is the only example in the plural) there is unanimity regarding the identification of the servant as the nation in its entirety. Beginning in chap. 56, however, the plural My servants refers only to the Israelite faithful (56:6; 63:17; 65:8-9, 13-15; 66:14). The identification of the servant in the four Servant Songs listed above is, nevertheless, very ambiguous. He has both a national and universal destiny: לברית עם (a covenant people; 42:6; 49:8) and לאור גוים (a light of nations; 42:6; 49:6). He is described as afflicted (42:2, 3; 49:7; 50:6-7; 52:14; chap. 53) and as a silent sufferer who expiates the sins of others (chap. 53).

There are two main ways of interpreting his identity — as a collective entity or as an individual. According to the former, the servant represents Israel as a whole, or a selected segment of the nation, the chosen ones, idealized and righteous Israel, as opposed to the more realistic Israel who are unfaithful. According to the latter interpretation, the servant is a specific individual for whom various identifications have been proposed, including Moses, Hezekiah, Uzziah, Jehoiachin, Jeremiah, Zerubbabel, the prophet himself, an anonymous individual, or a messianic figure. In the present commentary, I interpret the servant as representative of the Israelite nation. For the problem of suffering on another’s behalf, see the discussion in chap. 53.

6. ATTITUDES TOWARD FOREIGNERS AND RELIGIOUS UNIVERSALISM

The role of the nations in Deutero-Isaiah is multifaceted. On the one hand, the prophet initiates mock legal proceedings against the foreign idolaters and their gods (see §7 below), who are viewed as the adversaries of Israel and God, who is destined to punish and utterly subdue them (41:1-3, 11-12; 42:13; 43:14; 45:1-3; 47; 49:26; 51:22-23; 59:17-19; 60:12; 63:1-6; 66:15-16); alternatively, they shall be dominated by Israel (45:14; 49:7, 23; 54:4-5; 60:11, 14). On the other hand, they are charged with transporting the returning expatriates to Zion (49:22; 60:6, 9; 66:20) and shall offer rich tribute to the Temple (45:14; 60:5, 11, 13, 16; 61:6; 66:12). Israel shall suckle at their breasts (60:16) or, in less flowery language, shall benefit from the riches of many nations. They, the foreigners, shall be God’s ransom, ensuring Israel’s deliverance from Babylon (43:3-4); they shall serve Israel and shall rebuild the walls of Jerusalem (60:10). Israel is destined to be a light to the nations (42:6; 49:6) and shall establish a just order for them (42:1, 3); they, in turn, shall yearn for His instruction (42:4).

The most surprising element of Deutero-Isaiah’s vision regarding the nations is their ultimate integration into Israel (56:3, 6-7). They will recognize the Lord as the only true God, will worship Him and be redeemed (45:14-15, 22-23; 60:7; 66:23), and will walk by His light (60:3). Moreover, they will participate in the Temple ministry as priests and Levites (66:21), and their survivors will announce God’s glory to the rest of the world (60:19). The prophet promises the foreigners who attach themselves to the Lord: I will bring them to My sacred mount and let them rejoice in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices shall be welcome on My altar. For My house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples (56:6-7). Herein is to be found the beginning of religious conversion to the worship of the God of Israel.

7. DEUTERO-ISAIAH, POLEMICIST

a. Deutero-Isaiah, while residing in Babylon, polemicized against various beliefs prevalent among the Babylonians, which are reflected in their cosmogonic epic, Enuma Elish (= EE) (references are to B. R. Foster, COS 1:390-402):

According to this epic tale, the head of the Mesopotamian pantheon, Marduk, was born (EE I:83ff.). Deutero-Isaiah submits, in contrast, And understand that I am He. Before Me no god was formed and after Me none shall exist (43:10).

They believed that Marduk created the heavenly host (EE V:1ff.), whereas the prophet maintains that the Lord was the one who created and ruled over this mighty host (40:26).

As opposed to the Babylonian belief that the gods had personal advisors, e.g., the god Mummu is referred to as a tamlāku (counselor) (EE I:47ff.) and the god Ea counseled Marduk (EE VI:11ff.), Deutero-Isaiah definitively declares: Who has plumbed the mind of the Lord? What man could tell Him His plan? Whom did He consult, and who taught Him, guided Him in the way of right? Who guided Him in knowledge and showed Him the path of wisdom? (40:13-14).

According to the Babylonians it was Marduk who created the heavens and the earth (EE IV:136ff.). In contrast, the prophet repeatedly states that it was God, and God alone (see the references in §9 below).

As opposed to the declaration of Marduk’s kingship (EE V:85ff.), Deutero-Isaiah states unequivocally that the Lord alone is King over all (41:21; 43:15; 44:6; 52:7).

The Babylonians boasted that Marduk was the greatest of all gods and that none compared to him (EE VI:95ff.), whereas the prophet declares time and again that the Lord alone is God and that there is none but Him (40:18, 21-23; 43:11; 44:6, 8; 45:6; 46:9, etc.; and see §9 below).

b. The prophet did not restrict his polemics to the Babylonians and often argues against ideas that had taken root in the Israelite nation itself. He takes a decisive stance against four beliefs embedded in P, the priestly account of the creation narratives: the preexistence of darkness, joint participation in the act of creation, a corporeal image of God, and God’s fatigue following the six days of creation.

According to Gen 1:2, darkness was primordial, existing before God began His creative acts: And darkness over the surface of the deep; only light was created by God (Gen 1:3). In contrast, the prophet decisively declares that the Lord formed light and created darkness (45:7). This is the only place in the Bible that attributes the creation of darkness to God.

According to Gen 1:26: And God said: ‘Let us make man in our image and our likeness’ (cf. also 3:22: And the Lord God said, ‘Now that the man has become like one of us’ ; 11:7: "Let us, then, go down and